Share this post

Link to post

That's fine and dandy, but everyone knows that no true historian could actually be a Mormon. If s/he is, they need to have a proverbial asterisk next to their name by labeling them as an "apologist" or some other pejorative rather than a historian. Those with negative views about Mormonism, regardless of whether they have a Ph.D. or run a defunct ministry out of a storefront with a high school diploma, must always be referred to as "scholars" or some other credible expression.

Here are some good examples of how to properly do this:

"Apologist Richard Bushman speculates in Rough Stone Rolling (p 490) that this delay was possibly because Smith did not fall for the trap completely and did not translate the plates before his death a year later." [1]

"Two Utah scholars, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, have written the definitive treatise on Joseph Smith and money digging..." [2]

Share this post

Link to post

That's fine and dandy, but everyone knows that no true historian could actually be a Mormon. If s/he is, they need to have a proverbial asterisk next to their name by labeling them as an "apologist" or some other pejorative rather than a historian. Those with negative views about Mormonism, regardless of whether they have a Ph.D. or run a defunct ministry out of a storefront with a high school diploma, must always be referred to as "scholars" or some other credible expression.

Here are some good examples of how to properly do this:

You have now passed the qualification to edit LDS Wikipedia articles. Go forth and edit...